with the new greatjon, lets say you jump him in to defend for your supporter, he claims a power. then you stand him with frozen outpost. say you kneel him again to participate in that same challenge he is already in. would his 'then' effect trigger? or is this a case of "kneeling an already knelt character" not satisfying "then" requirements? my gut feeling says it is one of those cases, but the munchkin in me wants a second opinion...

Well you kneel him to participate in a challenge, but he's already participating, so you don't get the power the second time.

Yes, you are correct. In general, if an effect gives a character a status it already has, gaining that status the second time is considered unsuccessful.

Kneeling a character that is already knelt or standing a character that is already standing are the most common examples, but Greatjon becoming a defending character in the current challenge - where he is already defending - would be another example.

(Note that icons, keywords, STR, text, traits, and other card characteristics are not "status." Be careful not to over-apply the general rule here.)

You can't claim the power again, but could you legally use his ability to have him participate twice? I'm sure there's a reason that wouldn't work.

alpha5099 said:

Yes. If you put him in the challenge as a defender, then stand him, you could kneel him and legally trigger his ability again.

No. If you do legally trigger his ability a second time, a) the second "participate as a defender" is considered unsuccessful because he's already defending (the whole reason he doesn't get the power again is because it didn't work, right?), and b) even if it was considered successful, you don't get any practical benefit out of it. He doesn't get to count his STR twice on the same side of a challenge, he wouldn't pick up Renown more than once, etc. It's not like he becomes a "super defender" or anything like that.

Just for confirmation

Having him jump in as a defender to for your supported title, doesn't let you be considered as "the defender" right?

if they block and greatjon jumps in anyway, you are still not considered the defender.

and even if they dont block and greatjon jumps in, you are still not the defender unless you declare someone as a support defender the 'traditional' way.

Do I have this right?

Jumping him - or any - character into a challenge does not make you the defending player. The defending player is the player the attacker challenged. That doesn't change unless something specifically changes it. Greatjon does not, for example, put you on the line to satisfy claim.

Greatjon himself is a participating, defending character , though. Something to keep in mind if the attacker has the most Deadly characters in the challenge or some other "choose a participating character" effect is played.

buut, i didnt ask about the defending player...

"the defending player" is not the same thing as "the defender" though right? the defending player is the one that the challenge is made against, the one that pays claim. "The defender" however is the defending player BUT may also be the supporting player (as long as he is actually supporting in a challenge).

this is the conclusion i got when asking about Core Stannis...

at any rate, greatjons ability does not make you count as either of those.

oshi said:

The word "defender" can refer to two things, depending on the context; the defending player or a defending character. The defending player is the person against whom the challenge is declared. A defending character is any character that is participating in the current challenge on the defending side (no matter who controls it.)

So yeah, in the context of players, there is no difference between "defending player" and "defender."

In the context of "supports," if Player A does not declare defenders (characters), then supporting Player B can declare defenders. The rules say "If your characters defend a challenge in support of another player, you are considered the winner (or loser, depending on the results) of the challenge, but the original target of the challenge is still responsible for any claim that would need to be resolved." So, it doesn't say you actually become the defender (player), although it does let you use responses like "after you win/lose a challenge as the defender."

Think of it like KotS Robert. When you play the event card in your discard pile "as if you just played it from your hand," the event card was never actually in your hand. Same idea here. You are allowed to trigger responses as if you were the defender (player), but that doesn't mean you actually were. And remember, the rules don't say "you are considered the defender;" they say "you are considered the winner/loser." THAT'S not the same thing.

oshi said:

If A attacks B with Stannis and B has no Lord characters, "that player" (meaning B) cannot declare defenders (meaning characters). If C supports B, they could declare defenders through the "supports" mechanic, whether they control Lords or not. If I gave you a different answer at some other point, I'm sorry. I was wrong. Unless a different answer came from FFG, I wouldn't trust it. (And if it came from FFG, I'd personally want to talk to Nate and Damon about it because it seems totally inconsistent with both the text of the cards and the Stealth rule for declaring defenders in support of another player.)

oshi said:

ktom said:

The answer i got from nate/damon (i forget which, but i can't seem to track down the email anymore) has the same result, the supporting player can declare defenders regardless of if he has a lord or not. but the explanation was stannis refers to the "defending player" which is specifically the player the challenge was declared against.

now that i read what im typing, it could very well be a misinterpretation on my part (but to be fair, he left that room for interpretation). IT MAY just be that being able to do stuff "AS IF" you were "the defender", doesnt make you the "defending player"... they very well may be one and the same.

but on the other hand, it seems to me like a consistent difference... if you look up all the cards that mention "defending player" besides stannis, almost all have to do with claim-like/claim modifying effects. everything referring to the defender makes sense for them to apply to supporters.

it could be both *shrugs*

your last paragraph did confirm my original query by the way. the rest is just for the sake of discussion.

oshi said:

With Stannis never referring to a player simply as "the defender," I'm not sure how he becomes an example of "defender" applying to supporting players?

i think my confusion stems from the fact that it isnt explained/stated anywhere why a supporter is allowed to apply effects as/as-if he were the winning/losing defender.

it just is.

*i am aware that one of the example paragraph in the rules that offhandedly calls the supporter the defender.

oshi said:

But yeah, this is more of a rule than a reason.

Can I grab one power if I have 2 Titles, one of them supporting the other one, and I have Greatjon enter in the challenge on my side (defending player)?

One of my two Title does not support the other, but which one count toward the Greatjon? Both? Any of them?...

RAW, i do not see why not... But on the other hand... I've seen a fair few things ruled in this game ruled not strictly to RAW, but rather to what logically makes sense(IMO). And I would not be surprised to see a ruling basically saying "it doesn't make sense to be able to support yourself, so... you simply don't".

Bomb's reply to the BotS question(referring to the "defending player") incited me to hunt down Nates post again, and here it is...

Nate's reply: The "defending player" remains the same throughout the challenge (and still has to fulfill claim at the end, if necessary).
Since Stannis reads "if the defending player does not control a Lord, that player cannot...," his effect does not extend to other players at the table. The supporting player can declare defenders if he does not control a Lord.

Now this seems to imply the "defending player" is only ever the person the challenge is made against, the person who would pay claim (unless of course the challenge is redirected, but it is still the one who would pay claim). This is where i draw the assumption that it may be a different term from "the defender".
But at the same that wouldn't be the only reason supporters can defend stannis, as they arent considered a defender/defending player until AFTER defenders are declared... Still a lot of room for interpretation.

aaand another log for the fire, what is considered "your side" of a challenge? can a guardian wolf jump in to help greatjon in a challenge which you are niether attacker nor defender.
the answer of the first will pretty much solve this one but, if you are attacking with a non lord/lady, and your greatjon jumps in as a defender(for the sake of the argument), can a guardian wolf jump in on either side of the challenge?

I am assuming you have to be the attacking or defending/supporting player to use the wolf, and in the second case, it could only jump in as attacker.

Bolzano said:

Send that one to Nate. There is probably a precedent in comparisons of dual-House cards not letting you separate the two affiliations for comparison purposes (eg, a Stark/Baratheon character like Brienne cannot ever be considered "non-Stark," even when looking at is as "Baratheon"), but you'll want an official opinion on it.

oshi said:

So if you are player A and you jump Greatjon into a challenge between players B and C, you are not going to be able to bring Guarding Wolf into it to "guard" Greatjon because you have no "side" in that challenge.

So, is the Attacker and Supporter the only player who can trigger responses and effects based on the challenge outcome?

For example - If the original defender had knelt Vengeful characters, will they stand if the Supporter loses the challenge? I'm guessing no, but I can't tell based on this conversation what is possible. I presume not, otherwise if the Support wins the challenge, the original defender would also be considered the winner and could play, say, Terminal Schemes.

Bomb said:

What you seem to be doing with this whole thing is trying to reconcile that one rule for a special set of circumstances ("the supporter is considered the winner/loser of the challenge for the purpose of triggering effects") with the general rule for attackers/defenders. They are two separate things, so you really shouldn't be trying to somehow justify the exception (supporting rules) as part of the basic rule (attacking/defending player).

The "attacker" or "attacking player" is the person who initiated the challenge. The "defender" or "defending player" is the person against whom the challenge is initiated. They are the only ones with a "side" in the challenge, no matter who controls a character designated as "participating" in that challenge.

The above always holds true, except in the very narrow situation where the defending player does not declare defending characters, so another player with a supporting title does. In that case, the supporting player is considered the "winner" or "loser" of the challenge for all purposes other than claim during the "challenge resolution" framework action window.

The whole thing will probably be easier if you think of the "supports" rule as an exception and modification of the basic rule for the narrow use of a specific mechanic, not an integrated part of the basic rule.

You have convinced me with the point that it only matters during the challenge reslotuion framework action.

With that, i just want to confirm a couple things.

Can reek swap with a supporters characters?

Who would discard for war of attrition? both?

oshi said:

oshi said:

Yeah, I still think there is a consistent enough difference between where they use "defending player" and "the defender" for them to be different terms...

I sent the question in a while ago still no reply... I'm starting to think I might have mistyped my address or something lol...

oshi said:

What cards are you looking at that it would make a difference? I can't think of a single card where "the defender" (as opposed to "the defending player") is not preceded by "after you win/lose as," invoking the rules exception for supporting. So it looks to me as if every card we have either says "defending player," is covered by the "considered the winner/loser" supporting rule, or obviously refers to a character instead of a player.

If "the defender" is different from "defending player," what effect does that difference have?

A Champion Arises

Dominance : If you won every challenge in which you were the attacker or defender this round (minimum of 1), chose a non-Army character you control to claim 1 power for each opponent in the game (Limit one per phase)

So, if you are the defending player, and your Supporter wins or loses, you technically did not win the challenge, but you are still considered the defender which makes this event not possible to initiate, right?